Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Helsinki Code

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Helsinki Code

Some "computing urban legend" that I can't find with Google. Delete as nn or hoax. Kusma (討論) 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Check the usenet newsgroups under "The Helsinki Code". Its there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Panks (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed it seems to have been posted yesterday and today (couldn't find older posts), and could be a hoax on Usenet. It also doesn't appear to be notable on Usenet. Kusma (討論) 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think usenet newsgroups are good sources of info -Nv8200p talk 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The usenet posts were by the same author. Kalle 00:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And the content is plagarized from the "Message from God". Google search on "My presence in your world is unalterable for I am the sanctuary of both the cosmos and the one soul inside you" --Mensanator 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't worth the bandwidth. NoDot 01:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this is truly a "Message From God", then what God said cannot possibly be anything but what he really said. And saying what God said cannot be plagarism. Are the Bible author plagarists for interpreting what God said, even if what God said has been taken out of context for years? It is not possible to plagarize God. - Paul
  • You stole this material from another source and inserted it into your "urban legend" hoax. Whether the material is true or not is irrelevant. It's still plagarism. --Mensanator 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since God created it, it cannot be plagarism. It is impossible to plagarize God. We don't even know God exists. Plus: The bible writers wrote things that God said. That's plagarism, but I don't see God coming down from the sky with a big lightning bolt or anything. -Paul

• • Twit. Learn how to edit. Better still, take your lies back to alt,lang.asm where you belong.--Mensanator 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note alt.lang.asm is a nice place to go to keep warm during the cold months, assuming you don't bust a gut laughing. NoDot 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Humor, satire, and myth are an important part of human discourse. Don't take this project so seriously. A day without a chuckle just adds to your atherosclerotic burden. We have bandwidth to burn. I say burn it to keep ourselves warm.

• Delete The guy is a crackpot, has some real issues.

Delete It is not humor or satire and to the degree it is a myth it is someone trying to create one. And not doing a very good job.

• Delete This story is not even a believable hoax.

Again, those words were from God, so it cannot be words taken out of context (e.g. plagarism). - Paul

• Delete. --Flex 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don´t delete What about trying to reproduce on a running PDP-8? Rainer

Well, Rainer, if it was an urban legend and God wrote the message, it might be an example of EVP, except relating to a computer. I have heard of events whereby God has communicated to people over the old BBC Micro computers in the 1980s, so if it really happened as suggested by the urban legend, then compiling the "@" symbol would not be viable because God himself wrote the message. I am assuming it is not an easter egg left by a PDP-8 programmer, nor it is something a Fortran IV creator would have left in the source code for the compiler. The only explanations which cover this are: Either Gustav was hallucinating (PDP-8 programmers were known to be overworked/taking drugs) or God really did communicate with Gustav. We cannot be certain, however, because his diary of the events has since been lost. Unfortunately, this is just computer lore. - Paul

• Delete Paul is doing this for attention, he is now talking about God talking to him on his C-64.

Are you suggesting that I cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not? I talked to God a lot in my youth, and just because it happened to be on a Commodore 64 does not detract from the fact that it did take place. - Paul

• Delete I don't believe discussions about me losing my virginity is appropriate in discussing whether or not just post should be deleted. Therefore, delete the article about the Helsinki code, please. Thanks. - Paul

• Delete Did he help you insert your penis when you lost your virginity? What was that womans name and number again? She gave you a refernce right? You do think it is appropriate, you post about it on usenet.

• Delete Would you PLEASE STOP POSTING ABOUT ME LOSING MY VIRGINITY????. - Paul

Hmmmm no I won't. You think it is fit for consumption and have no problem with off-topic posts so deal with it you hypocrite.

• Delete Above posting is not appropriate for this forum.

Your existance isn't appropriate.

• Delete Helsinki Code is not a reputable urban legend.

It is something you made up Panks. Now get back to writing programs that finish 36th out of 36.

• Delete Talk.origins is not an appropriate discussion for the deletion of this urban legend.

You really are cluessless aren't you? Just stop responding unless your compulsive/obsessive disorder keeps you from it.

• Delete The Helsinki Code does not appear to be anything but a hoax. - Paul

ω Delete the article, but interesting discussion for the most part. With the remaining time maybe we could brainstorm ways to ensure an urban legend is notable, so to bypass future strife. Probably mass emails and some initial groundwork (websites, scopes.com entry). Anything else? This has left me pondering the meaning of a hoax hoax. Thanks.

• Delete this is a joke, but not good enough to justify the risk of confusing anyone.

• Delete Rewritten as a record of the joke's existence, it might be justified. But frankly... Wikipedia isn't here to further people's attempts at self-glorification and fame-seeking.

• Delete the title sounded familiar, so I thought it got to be something notable. And what do I see? The same post that Paul Allen Panks posted in rec.arts.int-fiction not so long ago, breaking his promise to never post here again. But that's not very notable, because he did it about four times already.  Grue  22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified, unverifiable and obvious hoax. Sliggy 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don´t delete Saying something like "does not appear" is a good judgement for everything. This and other similar articles should be just flagged with "weird science", "mystical science" or "scientific philosophy". I cannot prove nor disprove anything stated here, but I categorically protest any deleting of any human or computer thought.
  • Please read the deletion policy, and in particular the verifiability criteria. Also, please sign your opinions by typing "~~~~" (four consecutive tilde characters) at the end of your post. Thank you. Sliggy 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.